> xcept Alfie was terminal and had a minimal chance of survival and the U.K. government still refused to allow him to leave the U.K.

Permission to take him abroad was denied by the UK courts, not the UK government.

Also that was a proxy war. Did you think Alfie's parents looked like they had piles of cash lying around to file spurious UK Supreme Court appeals? No "Christian Concern" bankrolls this sort of thing because apparently ensuring babies die as slowly as possible (preferably in agony) is what "Christian" means these days along with denying the ordinary civil custom of marriage to people for being Gay, shutting down access to abortion and making sure children are indoctrinated into Christianity under the pretence that it's part of the surrounding "culture" and not straight up religious brainwashing...

They're an unintentional advertisement for the benefits of secular government policies.

In what sense are the courts not part of the goverment? It’s not like they are private, are they?

In the UK "government" is used both very generally (as you're construing it) to mean institutions including courts, police, the Bank of England, a local municipal authority, and thus about half of everything, and specifically to mean the executive, which in the UK is run directly by politicians from the ruling party in the legislature. Unless it's clear from context people usually mean the latter, and the executive steered well clear of baby Alfie's case.

In the US the Head of State figurehead role and the executive leadership are merged into the President of the United States, while a legislature remains separate. In the UK the Head of State figurehead role goes to a monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) but the executive leadership is granted to whichever group controls the legislature as Prime Minister.

> In the UK "government" is used both very generally (as you're construing it) to mean institutions including courts, police, the Bank of England, a local municipal authority, and thus about half of everything

I'm British and I can't recall the term "government" being used in this way, even informally. I think most people, even if they're not interested in politics or our "unwritten constitution", would have some understanding that the courts, police, etc. are separate from the government that they elect. They may or may not have a word for what that thing is (the State) but nobody talks about people being "arrested by the government" or "convicted by the government".

I can imagine the people might think of the Civil Service as part of the government though.

Interesting. Does the UK have another word other than “government” that has the US English meaning—any institution of or controlled by the state?

> Interesting. Does the UK have another word other than “government” that has the US English meaning—any institution of or controlled by the state?

In everyday speech, not really. We don't have a codified constitution so things are sometimes a little ambiguous. I guess people might use terms like "the state" or "the powers that be".

There is the legal concept of "The Crown" [1], which is kind of like the legal personality of the state. It sits at the root of a hierarchy, with the executive, legislature, courts, military etc. below it. The monarch, as head of state, exercises the powers of The Crown, although mostly in a ceremonial way on the advice of the government [2]. But nobody talks about The Crown in everyday speech.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...

And who was arguing in court to deny him and his parents rights?

> However, guardianship or consevatorship (when the person is over 18,) imparts a fiduciary duty on the person/organization to provide for the needs of their ward. So the ability of Mayo to “financially benefit” could be subject to debate.

No, it's not: the ability of conservators/guardians to benefit financially from that relationship is well-known, and is the reason why a legal fiduciary duty exists. The existence of that duty doesn't remove the ability, it just provides a basis for corrective action if it is improperly exploited.